Walking into a punch

Andrew McCarthy argues that Judge Roberts, or any nominee to the Supreme Court, should answer questions about important Supreme Court precedents. McCarthy is correct in theory. There is nothing improper about answering questions regarding the merits of past Supreme Court decisions (as opposed to saying whether the precedents should be overturned). And the views of a nominees about past decisions may be of some value in asessing whether he or she should be confirmed (but not much value if the process is operating as it should because nearly all past decisions of interest will have been decided by a fairly close vote, so that whichever position the nominee takes likely will be within the “mainstream”).
In my view, however, Judge Roberts should not answer such questions because the most recent Democratic nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, refused to do so. McCarthy dismisses this concern as follows: